Structuralism in study of social influence

Structuralism, as a broad theoretical paradigm, has influenced social sciences by emphasising the underlying, often hidden, structures that shape human behaviour, thought, and social interactions. When applied to social influence, a structuralist perspective would focus less on individual agency or psychological processes and more on the systems, patterns, and relationships that pre-exist individuals and dictate how influence operates.

Emphasis on Deep Structures.

Instead of looking at individual choices or attitudes, structuralism would seek to uncover the fundamental structures (e.g., language, kinship systems, cultural codes, economic relations, power dynamics) that establish the possibilities and constraints for social influence. For example, it might argue that the very structure of a language (its grammar, vocabulary, metaphors) influences how people perceive reality and, consequently, how they can be persuaded or can persuade others. In a hierarchical organisation, the formal structure of roles and authority dictates who can influence whom, regardless of individual personalities.

 

Influence as a Systemic Process:

Social influence is not seen as merely a direct action between individuals but as an outcome of the system in which individuals are embedded. The "rules" of social interaction, even if unstated, are part of the underlying structure that enables or limits influence. Think of norms, values, and institutions as structural elements that guide behaviour and shape what types of influence are considered legitimate or effective.

 Binary Oppositions and Meaning-Making:

Influenced by Ferdinand de Saussure (linguistics) and Claude Lévi-Strauss (anthropology), structuralism often looks for binary oppositions (e.g., sacred/profane, nature/culture, us/them) that structure human thought and give meaning to social actions. while structuralism emphasises binary oppositions to expalin it structure, derrida's deconstructivsm challenges this notion, thereby needing to introduce the idea of fluidity into the structure of language and thought. Social influence, from this view, might involve shifting individuals' positions within these symbolic structures or highlighting one side of a binary over another to achieve conformity or change. For example, a political campaign might frame issues in terms of "good vs. evil" to mobilise support.

 

Rejection (or Downplaying) of Individual Agency:

 A strong structuralist stance might argue that individual choices and intentions are largely determined by these underlying structures. Therefore, social influence is less about individual persuasion and more about the individual being "positioned" or "interpellated" (as in Althusser's work) by the dominant social structures. People conform or change their behaviour because the structure of their social world makes it the most logical, natural, or even the only option.

 Focus on Latent Functions and Unconscious Patterns:

 Structuralism is interested in the unconscious regularities and functions of social phenomena. Social influence might be analysed not for its overt purpose, but for its role in maintaining or reproducing specific social structures, power relations, or cultural meanings. For instance, rituals or traditions (which are forms of social influence) might be analysed for their structural function in reinforcing group cohesion or transmitting cultural values, rather than just as conscious acts of communication.

Contrast with other theories of social influence:

a) Psychological Theories (e.g., Social Impact Theory, Expectation States Theory): These tend to focus on individual-level cognitive processes, motivations, and interactions. While they acknowledge social context, their primary unit of analysis is often the individual or the dyad. Structuralism, in contrast, takes a more macro, systemic view.

 b) Agency-focused Theories: Many theories of social influence implicitly or explicitly grant significant agency to individuals to resist or initiate influence. Structuralism, especially in its purer forms, would be more deterministic, seeing individuals as products of the structures they inhabit.

Challenges and Criticisms:

 1) Determinism: A major criticism is that structuralism can be overly deterministic, leaving little room for individual agency, resistance, or social change driven by individual action.

 2) Ahistorical: Some critics argue that structuralism tends to focus on static structures, neglecting the historical processes through which these structures develop and change.

 3) Empirical Difficulty: Uncovering "deep structures" can be challenging to empirically verify, as they are often abstract and not directly observable.

While pure structuralism might be less common in contemporary social psychology's direct study of influence processes, its insights have deeply permeated other sociological and anthropological approaches that acknowledge the powerful role of social systems, institutions, and cultural frameworks in shaping how individuals interact and influence one another. It encourages us to look beyond immediate interactions to the larger, often invisible, forces at play.

Pratyush Chaudhuri